zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content."

Is this a violation of the 1st Amendment or a way to skirt around it?

>>memish+g3
The problem was that it was entirely one way. This was not about dangerous misinformation. Many of the accounts they wanted suppressed were low-follower accounts making jokes. A ton of FBI agents paid to sway an election. Even if you are comfortable with the outcome of the election, what about future elections when they decide to back a candidate you do not support?

>>starkd+Uf
What do you mean by one way? They clearly asked for scrutiny of pro-Democratic tweeters in addition to pro-Republican ones:

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232

Perhaps you should actually read Taibbi's work in this thread.

>>Apocry+7m
It doesn't matter if they were pro-dem or pro-republican. They were doing nothing wrong. What business is it to the FBI. The FBI had partisan agents working on government time to censor American citizens during an election. If you step out of your partisan headspace for a moment, you might realize how dangerous this is.

Imagine how this my play out in a future election with different candidates.

>>starkd+GI
Literally one comment ago you said "the problem was that it was entirely one way."

>>UncleM+ps1
Individuals accounts cannot always be categorized in one of two ways. There was a consistent attempt to counter any ideas that ran counter to a certain narrative.

>>starkd+D42
>There was a consistent attempt to counter any ideas that ran counter to a certain narrative.

An attempt by whom? Please be specific and name names.

Counter to which specific narrative? Please be specific and detailed.

Otherwise, you're just making unsupported claims. Not a good look, friend.